parashat re-e Monetary Tithing
The weekly Torah portion read in synagogues around the world this week is parashat r‑e. parashat r-e runs from Deuteronomy 11:26 to 16:17. The passage relevant to my remarks is Deuteronomy 14:22-27.
“Certainly you shall tithe all the produce of your seed which the field yields year by year. And you shall eat the tithe of your grain, your grape juice, your olive oil, the firstborn of your herd and flock, in the presence of HaShem your God in the place where he shall choose to tabernacle his name. In order that you may learn to fear HaShem your God all your days. If the way should be far from you, such that you cannot carry it, being that the place where HaShem your God shall choose to put his name is distant from you when HaShem your God has blessed you. Then you shall exchange it for silver, bundle the silver in your hand, and walk to the place where HaShem your God shall choose. Then you shall exchange the silver for whatever your appetite desires, for herd, for flock, for wine, for beer, for whatever your appetite asks. And you shall eat there in the presence of HaShem your God, and shall rejoice, you and your household. But the Levite who is within your gate do not abandon, for he has no portion in the inheritance with you.”
Readers of Deuteronomy may wonder whether contemporary church fundraising has biblical roots or biblical precedents. Among Seventh-day Adventists we often hear the claim that biblical evidence favors monetary tithing over other forms of church fundraising and that funds collected by this method enjoy God’s special blessing. The question Deuteronomy 14 raises is whether biblical practice actually has any bearing on contemporary fundraising.
Just to be clear about terminology, by “monetary tithing” I mean the wide-spread practice of individuals dedicating 10% of their profits, income, or earnings to the church. Some people call this practice “storehouse tithing.” Same thing by a different name. I use the term “monetary tithing” to distinguish it from tithe in ancient Israel. Tithe in ancient Israel was rent paid by tenant farmers for land use. In ancient Israel the landowner was God, and his tenants paid him rent. As in sharecropping, rent was payable the landowner in agricultural produce.
By the time of Jesus the vast majority of Jewish farmers were no longer paying tithe because they’d been forced off their ancestral lands by large plantation owners. They were no longer God’s sharecroppers. They worked as day laborers and as hired hands. They’d lost the privilege of tithing. Yet Jesus never suggests that such non-tithing Jews ought to substitute 10% of their earnings in place of the agricultural produce they'd owe were they still God's sharecroppers. Jesus never suggests the tithe commandment can be honored by doing something else. Jesus’ own solution to non-tithing Jews is the jubilee year [Leviticus 25:8-17]. When he first goes public as God’s anointed agent Jesus proclaims “the acceptable year of HaShem" [Luke 4:19]. In the jubilee year, Jewish farmers would get their ancestral lands back and once again become God’s sharecroppers, with the obligation to tithe their produce.
Although our parasha makes special provision for exchanging tithe for money, this exchange was merely for ease of transport. Deuteronomy 14 makes clear that in order for the sharecropper to render tithe, once he reaches Jerusalem he must change the silver in his hand back into agricultural produce. The interesting twist in Deuteronomy 14 is that the silver doesn’t necessarily need to be converted back into the type of produce being tithed. There’s room for personal taste. The text phrases it, “You shall exchange the silver for whatever your appetite desires.” A sharecropper can tithe olive oil, but once in Jerusalem he may decide he’d rather drink beer in God’s presence than salad dressing. He can tithe sheep, but if he’s tired of mutton, he has the option of eating beefsteak with God instead. The choice of agricultural produce consumed in Jerusalem is up to the sharecropper.
But once in Jerusalem you have to end up with agricultural produce that’s both kosher and subject to tithe. You can’t exchange the silver in your hand for vegetables or for fish. They might be kosher, but since they’re not subject to tithe, they can’t be presented in place of tithe. Above all, you can’t hand the silver in your hand over to the priest. If it’s money, by definition, it’s not tithe. In Bible times nobody paid tithe on profits from manufacturing or commercial transactions or on wages earned or on gifts or inheritance or dividends. There’s a very real distinction between contemporary church fundraising and rent for land use in ancient Israel, which is why I prefer separate terms: monetary tithing in contrast to biblical tithing.
The question everybody asks is, “If monetary tithing doesn’t go back to the Bible, when did it originate?” The answer is that it developed in stages.
The Imperial Church in Western Europe expropriated biblical tithing, because the Imperial Church believed herself to be God’s appointed successor to ancient Israel. Christian teaching was that the sacrifice of the mass was the successor to the Torah’s sacrificial system, and that Christian priests should enjoy the same level of benefits enjoyed by Aaron and his sons back in the Bible! In 585 CE, at the Council of Macon, in Lyon, France, tithe was declared to be obligatory for Christians, and the penalty for non-payment was set at excommunication. Similar action was taken by other church councils in Western Europe. In 778 CE, payment of tithe was legally enforced by Charlemagne. In 785 CE Pope Hadrian imposed tithe payments on the Anglo-Saxon church. Pope Hadrian’s decree wasn’t legally enforced, however, until 967 CE during the reign of King Edgar. In England tithes weren’t legally abolished until 1936. In many regions throughout Europe tithe barns are still standing today. These were once the collection points for tithes owed the church.
But the Roman Catholic Church pretty much stuck by the biblical concept of tithe as agricultural produce. It’s true the Mediaeval Church extended the list of tithable produce beyond the Bible. For instance, tithe was imposed on newly cut lumber. But the Mediaeval Church never imposed tithe on iron ore or on soldier’s salaries. The biblical concept persisted for a very long time.
Monetary tithing is a modern innovation. It goes back to the late 19th century when American Fundamentalists came up with a novel fundraising scheme for overseas mission. Monetary tithing really caught on after World War I after Americans had gotten used to national fundraising drives. Various denominations each had their own ministries to promote the new fundraising scheme: Southern Baptists had the 75 Million Campaign, Presbyterians had the New Era Movement, Disciples of Christ had the Men and Millions Movement. The Methodist Centenary Celebration had the slogan “A Million Tithers in Methodism.” Seventh-day Adventists and Mormons jumped on the bandwagon early.
Because they lack historical perspective many people today are under the impression that Christians have somehow always practiced monetary tithing. This simply isn’t so. It’s a recent development.
Interestingly, the earliest documentary evidence for monetary tithing in Judaism is Sefer Chasidim, which dates to the 13th century. In Judaism maaser ksafim, “monetary tithe” is earmarked for the poor [Deuteronomy 12:14:28-29 26:12-13]; in Judaism monetary tithe has never been used the pay the rabbi’s salary or to defray synagogue expenses. Furthermore, in Judaism monetary tithing has the status of custom rather than commandment. Jewish law actually favors other forms of charitable-giving and fundraising, which are more flexible. Christians are often surprised to learn that while observant Jews support Jewish institutions generously, very few observant Jews practice tithing.
Some proponents of monetary tithing have banked on the imprecise translation of תבואה, as “increase” in English [Numbers 18:30, Deuteronomy 14:22, 16:15, 26:12] and then extended the word “increase” to cover various forms of capital gain: earnings, pensions, profits, interest, dividends, gifts, winnings, etc. However, unlike the English word “increase,” the Hebrew word תבואה, doesn’t refer to capital gains; תבואה strictly means “agricultural produce.” Arguing that biblical תבואה somehow refers to capital gains is as silly as arguing that the English word “crop” refers to my paycheck! This argument from the imprecise wording of the KJV is intellectually dishonest.
Proponents of monetary tithing sometimes claim the reason the Torah doesn’t specify titheable sources of income other than agricultural produce, is that back in Bible times there was only an agricultural economy and that all financial transactions were a matter of barter. It’s true that the biblical ideal is the family farm, but many Jews in Bible times were also wage earners, many Jews were involved in commercial ventures, and many Jews earned their livelihood plying the skilled trades. None of these Jews paid tithe.
Certain forms of fundraising in the Torah actually presuppose capital liquidity: the annual temple tax [Exodus 30:11-16] payable in sheqels, the fee for redemption of the firstborn [Numbers 18:16] payable in sheqels, and above all the provision for sale and purchase of tithe produce itself [Deuteronomy 14:24-25]. It’s futile to argue that in Bible times there was only an agricultural economy.
Other proponents of monetary tithing have correctly understood that tithe in the Bible is rent, but they’ve turned around and claimed what God really wanted was income tax. They argue that the children of Israel were too primitive to know about taxes, so as a concession God charged them rent instead. We in the modern world, so the argument goes, who understand taxation, can pay God the sort of tithe he really wanted all along.
Well, anybody who knows anything about ancient civilization realizes that all Israel’s neighbors in antiquity knew about taxation. It’s silly to argue that God charged the children of Israel sharecropper’s rent, because they were too primitive to figure their taxes. No ancient civilization was so economically primitive they didn’t know rent from taxes.
Some Christians have sought a warrant in Deuteronomy 14 to allocate their monetary tithes as they see fit. They argue that if the sharecropper, once he arrives in Jerusalem, has the discretionary right to convert his tithe silver back into a different form of agricultural produce than what he raised, then you and I should have the right to allocate our own monetary tithe. I fail to see the correlation. In my opinion, we can’t apply the rules for biblical tithing to an institution of our own invention. The situation of rent paid in agricultural produce and church fundraising is just too remote to draw any analogy. We call both practices “tithing,” but that’s about the extent of their overlap.
What about Malakhi chapter 3? Christian fundraisers frequently use this passage to urge monetary tithing. Christian fundraisers are attempting to elevate monetary tithing to commandment status. Malakhi 3:8, 9.
“Ought man to defraud God? Yet you are defrauding me. And you ask, “How have we been defrauding you?” In tithe and contribution. You are suffering under a curse, yet you go on defrauding me.”
There are several problems with applying Malakhi chapter 3 to monetary tithing. We don’t know what the key verb in Malakhi 3:8 means, so we don’t want to put much weight on this verse. Jewish tradition openly admits it hasn’t preserved the meaning.
“Levi — It came about in one place that a man came before him [to press charges]. He said to him, qvaan palanya “Somebody qavaed me” [the phrase is in Aramaic]. He didn’t know what he had said to him. He came and asked in the study-house. They told him, ‘What he said to you is, ‘Somebody has robbed me.’ As it is written, ‘Will a man qava God?’ [Malakhi 3:8]. Said Rava from Barnish to Ashi, ‘Had I been in his place, I would have interrogated [further], ‘How did he qava you? What did he qava you with? Why did he qava you?’ From his own words, I could have figured out [what this verb means]. But he [Levi] supposed he [the plaintiff] had uttered a forbidden word [and so failed to pursue the matter].” [b. Rosh Hashana 27b]
“Our fathers of blessed memory, the generation of Malakhi, he used to rebuke them and they would answer him. ‘What is this, qvaanukha?’ [Malakhi 3:8] asked Rav Levi. It’s the tongue of the Arab. The Arab, when he converses with his companion, and wants to say, ‘What, are you trying to rob me!’ says to him, ‘What, are you trying to qova me!’ Hence that’s why it says, ‘By what have we qavaed you?’” [Midrash Tanchuma Yito, 9]
The ancient versions are all guessing in Malakhi 3:8. The Septuagint switches around the quf and the aiyin to produce, “Will a man grab God by the heel?” When translators resort to scrambling letters it’s a sure sign that they’re at a loss to understand their source text.
The Latin Vulgate offers the most scholarly guess, “Will a man transfix God?” Instead of the root quf bet aiyin the Vulgate substitutes the root yud quf aiyin, which means execution by dislocation of the joints and death by exposure. This verb occurs over in 2Samuel 21. It would have been a story familiar to the translator Jerome, but this alternative verb doesn’t make a whole lot of sense plugged into Malakhi 3:8.
The Aramaic Targum generalizes, “Will a man antagonize the judge?” Modern translations also, whatever they have to offer here, are mere guesses according to what might fit the general sense. Obviously the prophet Malakhi is comparing misusing tithe to something that his worshipers shouldn’t want to do to God. It’s something negative. Modern translators don’t have any more information here than the ancient rabbis did, they’re just less forthright about their ignorance. Our English Bible tradition of “Will a man rob God?” is a linguistic shot in the dark.
Another problem applying Malakhi 3:8 to monetary tithing is that God’s rebuke here is most likely directed at the priests for mishandling tithe, rather than at sharecroppers for withholding tithe. Throughout the Book of Malakhi [1:6-10,12-13 2:1-9,13 3:3-4] it is the priests who are singled out for censure. It would be odd if in chapter 3 verse 8 the prophet had suddenly switched from rebuking the priests to rebuking the children of Israel without any indication.
Ironically, in contemporary Christianity church leaders often resort to Malakhi 3 in order to berate members of the congregation for not donating 10% of their income to church administration. Church leaders seek to borrow biblical authority while ignoring biblical context. But if the Prophet Malakhi’s warning about tithe can be applied in today’s world, the closest analogy would be religious leaders who take advantage of the disadvantaged. Malakhi 3:5 warns:
“’I shall come near unto you [pl] for judgment. And I shall be a swift witness against sorcerers, against adulterers, against perjurers, against those oppressing the wage-earner, the widow, the orphan, and those turning aside the resident alien. They do not fear me,’ says HaShem of armies.”
Funny thing though, when we hear Malakhi chapter 3 being cited in church, they always start right in with verse 8. They never back up to verse 5!
So getting back to the question, “What bearing do the biblical tithing commandments have on church fundraising?” Probably none. Where then does that leave the Seventh-day Adventist claim that monetary tithing enjoys biblical authority? In what sense can it enjoy biblical authority if the Bible doesn’t anticipate it?
Well, monetary tithing may not be biblical in the exegetical sense, but it can still be considered biblical in the sense that the Bible provides authority for creative fundraising. Authority for creative legal interpretation, creative legislation, including creative fundraising schemes, is vested in Israel. The Torah provides for innovation and expansion beyond its own written code of legislation. Let’s look at the relevant passage. Deuteronomy 17:8-13.
“Should there arise a legal matter which is too difficult for you, between bloodguilt and bloodguilt, between liability and liability, between damage and damage, matters of lawsuit within your gates, then you shall stand up and go up to the place where HaShem your God will choose. You shall go to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days, and you shall inquire. And they will tell you the legal matter. And you shall act according to the matter which they tell you from that place where HaShem shall choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all what they shall instruct you. According to the Torah which they shall instruct you, and the decision which they render you, you shall act. Do not deviate from the decision which they shall tell you right or left. The man who commits deliberate violation, not listening to the priest who stands to serve HaShem your God there, or to the judge — that man shall die, and you shall burn out the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and deliberately violate no longer.”
Deuteronomy 17:11 calls what the priests, Levites, and judges instruct “Torah.” The word frequently translated “they shall instruct you” is the verbal form of the noun “Torah.” Deuteronomy 17:11 literally says, “according to the Torah which they declare to be Torah to you and the decision which they render you, you shall act.” In the Book of Deuteronomy Torah isn’t restricted to what God explicitly commands Moses. Torah can be human as well as divine. Remarkably, Deuteronomy 17 applies the same sanctions to human Torah as to divine Torah: “Do not deviate from the decision which they shall tell you right or left. The man who commits deliberate violation, not listening to the priest who stands to serve HaShem your God there, or to the judge — that man shall die.”
Jesus extends the biblical mandate for Israel’s leaders to create Torah to his own disciples. He places his disciples on the same level as priests, Levites and judges in the Book of Deuteronomy. After all, he intends his disciples to be the new leaders of Israel reconstituted around himself. Jesus bequeaths his disciples authority to decide what is to be Torah as new situations arise among God’s people. Matthew 18:18-20.
“Amen, I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall release on earth shall be released in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you on earth shall harmonize concerning any matter which they may ask, it will be to them from my Father in heaven. For where two or three are synagogued in my name, there I am in the midst of them.”
In the vocabulary of 1st century Judaism, “binding” and “releasing” are technical terms for making legal decisions which will stand up in a Jewish court of law. In difficult situations where the rules aren’t clear Jesus promises to help his disciples make good decisions. He backs up their decisions with his own authority: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall release on earth shall be released in heaven.” When things aren’t spelled out in Scripture Jesus has entrusted communal leaders to work out what needs to be done. Just to summarize what I’m saying, there’s a biblical mandate to come up with new rules and procedures as necessity dictates.
I believe monetary tithing falls into this category. Obviously, church-sponsored activity requires funding. Since Scripture nowhere spells out how these funds should be collected, the onus is on the church to come up with a workable scheme.
Church fundraising is clearly biblical. In 1Corinthinans 9:14 the Apostle Paul writes,
“Thus also the L-rd has commanded that those who announce the gospel should live from the gospel.”
Whether by “the L-rd has commanded” the Apostle Paul refers to a teaching of Jesus in circulation or to the L-rd’s commandments written in the Torah which can be interpreted to mean that those who announce the gospel should live from the gospel, isn’t clear. Whichever the case may be, in 1Corinthians 9 the Apostle Paul offers two arguments from the Torah’s commandments in favor of church fundraising. He argues from the Torah’s prohibition of muzzling an ox when threshing grain [Deuteronomy 25:4] that apostles are entitled to some remuneration for their labor [1Corinthians 9:8-10]. He argues from the Torah’s commandment assigning specific cuts of meat plus the hide to the priests who process animal sacrifices [Leviticus 7:6-10, 31-35] that he, the Apostle Paul, ought to receive tangible benefits in recognition for the benefits he has provided others [1Corinthians 9:13]. But significantly, when arguing in favor of church fundraising from the Torah the Apostle Paul doesn’t bring up the tithing commandments. In his mind tithing wasn’t relevant to church fundraising.
In view of the biblical material, I believe the Seventh-day Adventist approach to church fundraising needs to be more sophisticated. Frequently in the past we’ve simply appealed to biblical prooftexts without acknowledging that our scheme of monetary tithing is unlike tithing in the Bible. This has both misrepresented the Bible and downplayed our own Spirit-led inventiveness. It has left the impression that the Bible doesn’t grant Seventh-day Adventists authority to come up with anything that hasn’t already been written in advance. Our approach has left the impression that Jesus’ promise, “Whatever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall release on earth shall be released in heaven” might possibly apply to others, but doesn’t apply to us. We need to own up to our own decision, and explain to our donor base why monetary tithing is a good scheme and why it deserves to be continued.
During the 130-odd years since we’ve adopted this scheme God has immeasurable multiplied our efforts. Our work has steadily gone forward in circumstances where other fundraising schemes have floundered. We’ve been able to fund projects all out proportion to our numbers. God has honored our people’s commitment to monetary tithing on numerous occasions. We ought to take this as a sign of God’s approval. Even if Seventh-day Adventist leaders at the time weren’t cognizant of the biblical mandate for their inventiveness, they made a good decision. Our public teaching now needs to catch up to our practice.
Instead of authorizing us to develop our own solution, God, of course, could have simply handed down a direct commandment like “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not steal.” God however, has respected our growing maturity and allowed us to help make the rules. He has actually paid us a big compliment. He’s treating us like partners. We should thank God not only for enabling us to donate monetary tithe, but for the honor of working on this piece of legislation together. Let’s be faithful in our responsibilities and continue to cooperate with him.
